3 ms·
Nope. That would require those same companies from not abusing our political process to obtain illegal political outcomes - outcomes that are unconstitutional
by selectively 8mo ago
Nope.
That would require those same companies from not abusing our political process to obtain illegal political outcomes - outcomes that are unconstitutional - like Citizens United, which led to PHrMA dumping unimaginable money into bad faith political advertising/lobbying.
Until or unless they stop being bad actors, everyone should pirate their stuff. Free Luigi.
- eddythompson80 8mo agoWhenever someone cites Citizens United, I'm 99.9% sure they have no idea what that ruling was about.
- selectively 8mo agoIn other words: you are a reactionary who thinks little of others. Noted.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- eddythompson80 8mo agoNo because you literally have no idea what the citizen united ruling was based on what you wrote. Those 99.9% of people use “Citizen United” the way you used it. As a catch all for “corporate political contributions” except it wasn’t that impactful of a ruling regarding that. If you actually know what it was then answer how does limiting non-electioneering advertisements from PACs for 30 days out of the year changes anything?
- pfdietz 8mo agoHoly non sequitur, batman.